Review I.g. (session outline) for section assignments and descriptions.
In advance of September 15 meet with small groups/dyads who are working together (theory areas or session outline chunks)
Prepare section outlines (with detailed written notes) for September 15
Prepare one page summary of findings for September 15 (see section Ig.3.iii)
Brandon – speak with Sarah
Patti and Kathleen – email with Jeff Howard
Lina – send out a doodle for next meeting.
Proposed next meeting:
Early August as a point of check-in on whether or not our plan is feasible – are you having any problems/concerns with the process (not so much content sharing). Update on conversations with Sarah and Jeff.
Planning for IARSLCE:
Is IARSLCE the first opportunity to share our thinking together about reciprocity at a conference?
i. Yes.
September 15 is the date by which info gathered pertaining to the parts we are responsible for. (summary pages and also well-developed notation for our outline area)
October 15 “conference-ready”
November 2-4 deadline
Product for September 15 is outline with well-developed notes that can be used for article.
We decided to use an earlier version of our submission to help us chunk/assign responsibilities since the final version was written so that we could fit the submission guidelines (but our own thinking was best represented in an earlier version). On dropbox, see reciprocity_panel_version_4
The session will be 1 hour and 10 minutes.
i. 20 minutes (Brandon and Patti and Kathleen) Activity to surface definitions of reciprocity and to present a bit of content (democratic engagement/transformation) and to model elements of the version of reciprocity that we are trying to endorse.
Brandon floated the idea of using 3 scenarios to portray different conceptions of reciprocity
ii. 15 minutes (Barbara & Sarah?) Frame the multiplicity of understandings/lack of clarity as a problem or area for research interest – based on literature review MJCSL and Advances - & (Kathleen) Introduce what a concept review is – our method of doing a concept review – genealogy.
iii. 20 minutes (All, via summary sheets) Share some of our findings (i.e. discipline x defines it this way, y in this way)
Point for clarification – how will we share our findings? We will each take a turn or will be somehow synthesize these?
Not all of us will present this component
If we are using the presentation as a stepping stone: create a handout where each of us produces one summary page of findings and one person could present the section. Is lit review and findings the same thing when you’re doing a concept review?
Evolutionary biology/Ecology - Patti
Philosophy/ Political and Economic and Game Theory - Brandon
Psychology - Patti
Feminist Theory - Kathleen
Leadership –Lina & Patti
Western and non-Western cultures. –Kathleen & Barbara
Make sure to pass on articles that apply to one another’s frames
Brandon will set up folders for each of the disciplinary topics and also an “other”
We don’t want to loose the interactive element: that’s the power of the session.
iv. 15 minutes (Lina) Discussion of what the importance of different conceptualizations of reciprocity & Implications for research
Point for clarification: do we want to can the implications or do we want to draw them out with the audience? Draw them out with the audience
Kathleen wants to make sure that we spend real time with each other discussing this. We are going to carve out some time at the conference to do some intellectual heavy lifting
We have chosen to assign different RWG members to the four sections (minus findings) and we’ll add additional info as needed and assign presenters later.
Brandon will check in with Sarah to find out how she will stay connected to the project – a summary sheet, perhaps, on her disciplinary area?
Concept Review Article
Outlets
i. MJCSL’s editor is interested in our topic: December 20th-ish is the deadline for a one-page sketch. Last Monday in March is date for full paper.
Components
i. We realize that this project has multiple audience and multiple components that might be better suited to different outlets and different products.
ii. This could be a question that we take back to Jeff to pick his brain about the lay of the land about publishing in this area. He could help us think through what the 6 are and what could be best where.
iii. We recognize that this is a research agenda and a line of inquiry that is much broader than one presentation or one article.
iv. Patti and Kathleen will email Jeff and find out his thoughts.
Action Items:
Proposed next meeting:
Early August as a point of check-in on whether or not our plan is feasible – are you having any problems/concerns with the process (not so much content sharing). Update on conversations with Sarah and Jeff.
- Planning for IARSLCE:
- Is IARSLCE the first opportunity to share our thinking together about reciprocity at a conference?
i. Yes.- September 15 is the date by which info gathered pertaining to the parts we are responsible for. (summary pages and also well-developed notation for our outline area)
- October 15 “conference-ready”
- November 2-4 deadline
- Product for September 15 is outline with well-developed notes that can be used for article.
- We decided to use an earlier version of our submission to help us chunk/assign responsibilities since the final version was written so that we could fit the submission guidelines (but our own thinking was best represented in an earlier version). On dropbox, see reciprocity_panel_version_4
- The session will be 1 hour and 10 minutes.
i. 20 minutes (Brandon and Patti and Kathleen) Activity to surface definitions of reciprocity and to present a bit of content (democratic engagement/transformation) and to model elements of the version of reciprocity that we are trying to endorse.- Brandon floated the idea of using 3 scenarios to portray different conceptions of reciprocity
ii. 15 minutes (Barbara & Sarah?) Frame the multiplicity of understandings/lack of clarity as a problem or area for research interest – based on literature review MJCSL and Advances - & (Kathleen) Introduce what a concept review is – our method of doing a concept review – genealogy.iii. 20 minutes (All, via summary sheets) Share some of our findings (i.e. discipline x defines it this way, y in this way)
- Point for clarification – how will we share our findings? We will each take a turn or will be somehow synthesize these?
- Not all of us will present this component
- If we are using the presentation as a stepping stone: create a handout where each of us produces one summary page of findings and one person could present the section. Is lit review and findings the same thing when you’re doing a concept review?
- Evolutionary biology/Ecology - Patti
- Philosophy/ Political and Economic and Game Theory - Brandon
- Psychology - Patti
- Feminist Theory - Kathleen
- Leadership –Lina & Patti
- Western and non-Western cultures. –Kathleen & Barbara
- Make sure to pass on articles that apply to one another’s frames
- Brandon will set up folders for each of the disciplinary topics and also an “other”
- We don’t want to loose the interactive element: that’s the power of the session.
iv. 15 minutes (Lina) Discussion of what the importance of different conceptualizations of reciprocity & Implications for research- Concept Review Article
- Outlets
i. MJCSL’s editor is interested in our topic: December 20th-ish is the deadline for a one-page sketch. Last Monday in March is date for full paper.- Components
i. We realize that this project has multiple audience and multiple components that might be better suited to different outlets and different products.ii. This could be a question that we take back to Jeff to pick his brain about the lay of the land about publishing in this area. He could help us think through what the 6 are and what could be best where.
iii. We recognize that this is a research agenda and a line of inquiry that is much broader than one presentation or one article.
iv. Patti and Kathleen will email Jeff and find out his thoughts.